Tuesday’s class discussion concerned Marie Antin’s “Promised Land”. In the discussion following the pointing activity, there were common themes of citizenship, the love of America, pointed ignorance, and hindsight. It seems that Antin’s view of America as a child was skewed poisitvely in contrast to Russia, as in her writing she talks of America and George Washington as some sort of godly entity, as if America as a whole could only be full of good things and patriotic Bostonian history; and when she begins school and grows older, she is too glad to claim America as “her country”. Her shift in writing is most likely due to the distinction between the difficulty of the journey, and the impressiveness of the destination. This contrasts greatly with what was going on historically; during the time this book was written (1912), the Dillingham Report was published, establishing western European immigrants as superior to those from eastern and southern Europe, and anti-Semitic sentiments were not uncommon either. However, Antin seems to feign ignorance in these matters, and adopts a wholly patriotic stance. I believe this may have been for publishing advantage, as well as self-preservation. Her opinions must have changed from her childhood ideals as she grew older, but such thoughts were omitted from her book, as if her negative opinions would only justify negative views of the new immigrants of the time.
In Marie Antin’s autobiography there were many revealing details about her life and the way the world viewed her at the time. When she talks about identifying as an American and her national pride I think it is important to keep in mind that she never really felt like she belonged to a country before. In her home town, she belonged to neither Russia or Poland. America was the first time she felt a sense of belonging. In her writing, you see this new found joyful emotion. It may seem that her expressions are a bit extreme. Speaking of George Washington as almost a deity figure was extreme but befitting her praise of him. She never had a figure to look up to as a hero for a country and therefore the language in most of her autobiography is one sided and not complete. I also find it interesting to see Antin opting to exclude the discussion on anti-semitism that was present in her time. I know it is not true that she did not experience any kind of hate or discrimination in her passage to America. The different perspectives of people in the countries she passed to must have been an issue. I think her choice to omit this could have been to shift the readers’ focus or because of a publishing advantage. Overall, I think Antin’s work was a great read to really understand the different narrated I’s and narrating I’s.
I was really interested when you were talking about the different narrated and narrating I’s. I also think that idea of ‘the American citizen who is in some way equal to George Washington’ which Antin seems especially shocked by, and takes special note of. And ‘the American citizen who had to struggle for freedom (which is also kind of like George Washington given his role in the revolutionary war)’ which definitely applies to Antin and her family, constitute different ideological I’s in Antin’s work.
I believe that Marie Antin chose to exclude any negative experiences she had as an immigrant in America because she chose another way to respond to the nativist views that were arising at the time. Instead of a bleak and critical account of her American experience, she chose one of optimism and opportunity. How could a nativist argue that these new immigrants don’t value American ideals enough after reading her story? By showing how badly she wanted to become a “true American” she undermines the nativist argument.
I also agree that Antin’s wholehearted adoption of America was interesting, as it seemed like her patriotic love for the country and her idolization of George Washington were a bit over the top. As you stated, George Washington became like something of a God in her eyes, as he came to represent everything that was great about her new home country. I think that her obsession with George Washington had more to do with her changing identity and adoption of America than it had to do with Washington himself. Washington was simply a representation of the United States, and she believed that showing an overwhelming love for Washington was the best way to prove that she had assimilated into her new country.
I completely agree with your sentiment!, I really appreciated her use of narrative and focus to emphasize the differences in her two homes.
I totally agree with you about her possible bias when writing about America. As she writes her chapter about George Washington, she uses the past tense, indicating that her opinions may have changed. Of course, we haven’t read the whole book, so her new/current ideas may come out in some other aspect of the book. I think that for Antin, the most powerful thing about America was the sense of national identity (unlike Polotzk), which is projected onto George Washington.
I also think this text is very useful for examining the narrating and the narrated I’s. I found two distinct voices between the first selection we read, where Antin is travelling from Russia, and the second passage where she is settled in America. The first passage utilizes the narrating I as Antin recounts the experience of travelling to America in detail with accounts from a written letter. The second passage is contrived in comparison, an example of the narrated I from which stand point she is able to compose her experiences into the desired reflection she would like to project onto society. While she is writing from a child’s perspective, her adult influence is quite apparent in the precise ways in which she manages to avoid talk of the pitfalls of immigration.